Visualizing Complex Design: The Evolution of Gigamaps

  • Birger SevaldsonEmail author
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 8)


Around 2005 the concept of Systems Oriented Design (SOD) was slowly emerging. This happened organically through experimental design practice and education-based R&D at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design. Centrally in SOD is Gigamapping, a technique to map out, contextualize, and relate complex systems, their environment and bigger landscape, their current state, as well as preferred future states. The role of the Gigamap is constantly developing. This process has partly been a planned research process and partly a process of discovery and conceptualization through research by design. This chapter recapitulates and analyses this long-term process of developing the concept of the Gigamap. It goes through and discusses the sources and inspirations, the framing and methodology, and the concepts that were described until recently. Some of these concepts emerged as tacit knowledge made explicit; others were systematically planned and developed over time.

The paper concludes by introducing a new sense sharing model for visual collaboration.


  1. Aaltonen, M., Barth, T., Casti, J. L., Mitleton-Kelly, E., & Sanders, T. I. (2005). Complexity as a sensemaking framework. In FFRC-Publications. Helsinki, Finland: Finland Future Research Centre.Google Scholar
  2. Ackoff, R., & Sheldon, R. (2003). Redesigning society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16(1), 3–9.Google Scholar
  4. Aguirre, M., & Paulsen, A. (2014). Using material properties to understand and shape relationships in public and social services. In Relating Systems Thinking and Design 2014 Symposium Proceedings. Oslo, Norway: SDRN.Google Scholar
  5. Aguirre-Ulloa, M., & Paulsen, A. (2017). Co-designing with relationships in mind. Form Akademisk-Research Journal of Design and Design Education, 10(1).Google Scholar
  6. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different. Science, 177(4047), 393–396. Retrieved from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Banathy, B. H. (1997). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Bogen, L. T., Jensen, R., LeBlanc, L., & Tveit, S. S. (2014). On the same page. Retrieved from
  11. Boland, R. J., & Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as design. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Broadbent, J. (2003). Generations in design methodology. The Design Journal, 6(1), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design : How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Collins Business.Google Scholar
  14. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Collopy, F. (2009). Lessons learned – Why the failure of systems thinking should inform the future of design thinking. Retrieved from
  17. Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  20. Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Berkeley, CA: Operations Research Center; University of California. Retrieved from
  21. Gasparski, W. W. (1979). Praxiological—Systemic approach to design studies. Design Studies, 1(2), 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gedenryd, H. (1998). How designers work. Lund, Sweden: Department of Cognitive Science, Lund University. Retrieved from
  23. Glanville, R. (2014, October). How design and cybernetics reflect each other. In Proceedings of Third Symposium of Relating Systems Thinking to Design (pp. 15–17). Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  24. Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: The viz kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15(2), 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Golsby-Smith, T. (1996). Fourth order design: A practical perspective. Design Issues, 12(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hein, G. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. Institute for Inquiry. Available at http://www.Exploratorium.Edu/ifi/resources/constructivistlearning.htmlS
  27. Hensel, M. U., & Sørensen, S. S. (2014). Intersecting knowledge fields and integrating data-driven computational design en route to performance-oriented and intensely local architectures. FOOTPRINT, 8(2), 59–74.Google Scholar
  28. Ison, R. L. (2008). Systems thinking and practice for action research. Retrieved from
  29. Jones, P. H., & Bowes, J. (2016). Synthesis maps: Systemic design pedagogy, narrative, and intervention. In Proceedings of Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD5) 2016 Symposium. Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, P. H., Shakdher, S., & Singh, P. (2017). Synthesis maps: Visual knowledge translation for the CanIMPACT clinical system and patient cancer journeys. Current Oncology, 24(2), 129–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, P. H., & VanPatter, G. K. (2009). Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0: The rise of visual sensemaking. NextD Journal; ReThinking Design.Google Scholar
  32. Klein, G., & Moon, B. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21, 70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lurås, S. (2012). A different systems approach to designing for sensemaking on the vessel bridge. In Systems Engineering in Ship and Offshore Design Conference. London: Royal Institute of Naval Architects.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  37. Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT: The Sustainable Institute.Google Scholar
  38. Midgley, G. (2000). Systems intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1st ed. Educational Technology, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pangaro, P. (2016). Designing conversations for socially-conscious design. In P. Jones (Ed.), Proceedings of Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD5) 2016 Symposium. Toronto, Canada: Systemic Design Research Network. Retrieved from
  41. Protzen, J.-P., & Harris, D. J. (2010). The universe of design: Horst Rittel’s theories of design and planning. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Ritchey, T. (1998). Fritz Zwicky, Morphologie and policy analysis. 16th EURO Conference on Operational Analysis, Brussels, 11.Google Scholar
  43. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Romm, J., Paulsen, A., & Sevaldson, B. (2014). Practicing systems oriented design; a guide for business and organisations that want to make real changes. Oslo, Norway: Oslo School of Architecture and Design.Google Scholar
  45. Rowe, P. G. (1991). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Russell, D. M., Stefik, M. J., Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1993). The cost structure of sensemaking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ‘93 (pp. 269–276).
  47. Schön, D. A. (1982). The reflective practitioner. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  48. Sevaldson, B. (2008). Rich design research space. FORMakademisk, 1(1), 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sevaldson, B. (2009). Systems oriented design. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from
  50. Sevaldson, B. (2010). Discussions and movements in design research: A systems approach to practice research in design. FORMakademisk, 3(1), 8–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sevaldson, B. (2011). GIGA-mapping: Visualisation for complexity and systems thinking in design. In Nordic Design Research Conferences, Making Design Matter. Helsinki, Finland: NORDES. Retrieved from
  52. Sevaldson, B. (2013a). Can designers design anything? In 2012 yearbook of the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (pp. 94–99). Oslo, Norway: Oslo School of Architecture and Design.Google Scholar
  53. Sevaldson, B. (2013b). Systems oriented design: The emergence and development of a designerly approach to address complexity. In DRS Cumulus 2013. Oslo, Norway: HIOA.
  54. Sevaldson, B. (2014). Holistic and dynamic concepts in design: What design brings to systems thinking. In Proceedings of RSD3, Third Symposium of Relating Systems Thinking to Design. Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from
  55. Sevaldson, B. (2016). A library of systemic relations. In P. H. Jones (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD6) Symposium. Toronto, Canada: Systemic Design Research Network. Retrieved from
  56. Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial (First Edit). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Singh, J. (2013). Towards a sustainable resource management: A broader systems approach to product design and waste management. Retrieved from
  58. Skjelten, E. B. (2014). Complexity and other beasts. Oslo, Norway: Oslo School of Architecture and Design.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design. In Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 89–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Swann, C. (1999). Translating action research into design practice. In Useful and critical. Helsinki, Finland: UIAH.Google Scholar
  61. Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  62. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  63. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wettre, A. (2012). Report on experiences with GIGA-mapping with leader groups.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oslo School of Architecture and DesignOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations